I think this is good news. To those saying the ISO rules may put small manufacturers out of the pro peloton, well yes, highly likely. But if the 6.8kg rule is for safety, and these niche manufacturers have never tested their products, then surely, having safety tests in lieu of weight limits is much more sensible.

Don't we want the small manufacturers in the pro peloton, surely it's a good thing that there is a choice and variety? Also having pros using equipment from `niche manufacturers' is probably an effective way of testing such components. I've read through the UCI equipments regs and I don't like what I see. Do we really want the sport to go down the golf route, where the equipment regulations lose sight of the fact that for most people it's a game. I spent hours one day on the internet attempting to find out whether one of my partner's golf clubs complied with a new rule change, and I noted websites suggesting that the rule change was brought in to stimulate sales of clubs. As for the UCI's insistence on `lawyer tabs', even for pro teams, give me a break. A UCI spokesman when pressed on tabs could only cite one occasion ever when a crash in a pro race might have been caused by a quick release failure, Cavendish a few years ago, however the video footage does not show this at all. So now we have the ridiculous situation of mechanics unwinding and winding back up quick releases (Tour de Flanders last Sunday), laughable given the excellence of Campagnolo's original design. For `equipment safety' read money, and pressure from the big manufacturers.

Re: Amateur racing - who cares. If my bike is 1kg lighter than a competitors because I have more funds than so be it.

How about if you can usually ride your bike in lower class UCI affiliated events, as the organisers take a pragmatic approach to enforcing the rules at that level, but once or twice a year you randomly get someone working to the letter of the rules and get told you can't start as your frame is not on the UCI approved list? Consistent enforcement of the rules at amateur level has already been a particular issue with the UCI aero rules and the like....

Currently most people on here would have to add weights to their bikes to race. Anyone with a frame over 3 years old would need a new frame as it wouldn't carry a UCI compliance sticker. Anyone who rides enve 6.7s would not be able to run them (too deep for road race). How many people have checked whether their TT bike is UCI legal. Lets get real mate, it is an issue for a few, who might well already have an issue with the rules as they sit currently.

If you set up the rules one way then you have some stuff that is probably not an issue for non-pros, unless under certain circumstances. If you set up the rules another way then it's not an issue for non-pros under any circumstances. I'd prefer the 2nd one

agreed with catbill.Also, the translation of lower weight typically means more money.It's not really a bid deal for the pros.However, for us common folks, that translates to even more expensive equipment for the masses (consumers).

Looking at Giro course and its 120kph descents, deadly crashes we have seen there, nobody gives a damn about pro's safety. It has to be spectacular, nothing else. Why would they prevent them from using 700g frames which will snap resulting in huge crash?

Regular people have access to the same equipment as pros. No one will argue that an F1 car should be allowed on the street, nor that street cars should be allowed in F1 racing.

As CarlosFerreiro just pointed out... any non-pro can go to a UCI bike race. Non-pros don't end up in an F1 seat.

If UCI must consider ALL racers, and not just the top pros, the standards will not be perfect for anyone in the sport, but they can at least be fair across the board.

Maybe the future is to replicate what the FIA do and design rules and criteria for professional tours only, and not for amateur club events.

I had a read through the UCI time trial regulations the other night and I was completely baffled by their complexity and stupidity. Disqualifying cyclists for bending their elbows or wrists too much? Sounds like Olympic walking.

I imagine the Pro's would welcome the weight change, a lot of pros use alloy parts to add weight, but I'm sure for most of the pro peloton the switch to carbon would be well received for comfort! Also Sagan rumoured to have 400g solid steel crank spindle on his super-six, it's just silly that things like that are necessary. Pro teams are probably spending more money getting custom weights made for frames than they would be shaving off some grams using readily available parts. So although cost for some teams could be an issue, I think a reducing to 6.3kg would be easily in budget for a lot of teams.

That argument doesn't hold water. It would further penalise big riders, that are already at a disadvantage because they are less aerodynamic and have to push more of their own mass uphill. This is NOT offset by increased power output! Think I'm wrong? How often do you see a big guy win a GT? Rarely! In comparison it's more common for smaller cyclists to win various sprints, ITT's, classics etc.

Even ignoring the ramifications for the riders, it would be a complete mess to enforce a policy like that. The UCI has enough trouble with checking TT position etc, let alone having to weigh bikes and riders.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum